Transcript Tomorrow's technologies: best bets and likely losers

best bets and likely losers
Marshall Breeding
Director for Innovative Technology and
Research
Vanderbilt University Library
Nashville, TN USA



a deep look at how university libraries should
be responding to the possibilities and pitfalls
of the developing technologies, predicting
some winners;
the demise of the LMS?
Scope: Higher Education

http://www.librarytechnology.org
Repository for library automation data
 Expanding to include more
international scope
 Announcements and developments
made by companies and organizations
involved in library automation
technologies







Started building database in 1995
Most comprehensive resource for tracking ILS
and other library automation products
Serves as a directory for general public
Specialized tool for tracking LMS and other
automation products
39,530 Total libraries listed
4,745 UK Libraries listed
Annual Industry report published in Library
Journal:








2009: Investing in the future
2008: Opportunity out of turmoil
2007: An industry redefined
2006: Reshuffling the deck
2005: Gradual evolution
2004: Migration down, innovation up
2003: The competition heats up
2002: Capturing the migrating
customer
Industry Consolidation
 Abrupt transitions for major library
automation products



Frustration with ILS products and vendors
Increased ownership by external interests
Increased industry control by external
financial investors
 Demise of the traditional OPAC
 New genre of discovery interfaces
 Open Source products hit the
mainstream

Breeding, Marshall: Perceptions 2008 an international survey of library automation.
http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2008.pl January 2009.

Traditional LMS companies
◦ Talis DS/Axiell, Innovative, SirsiDynix, Ex Libris

Library cooperatives
◦ OCLC

E-Content Tech / Content companies
◦ Serials Solutions – EBSCO

Open Source service companies
◦ LibLime, BibLibre, IBM?, Oracle?



Prepared to make investments in new
technology?
Strategy to maximize profits by reducing
costs?
Technology Strategy
◦ Roadmap?
◦ New technology or new marketing?
◦ Can’t keep repackaging outdated









Capacity for Research and Development
Understanding of higher education and
library missions and culture
Track record of positive partnerships
Adequate resources for service and support
Forward looking technology components
Roadmap into the next generation
Solid business model
Focus on investment
High customer retention


Aging technology without next-generation
roadmap
Stagnant business model
◦ Revenue based on maintenance or new sales?




Focus on cost cutting
Diminishing customer base / personnel
High rates of customer defections
Low level of customer confidence
Comparison of SirsiDynix and Ex Libris
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
Composite Endeavor + Ex Libris
200
Composite Sirsi + Dynix
100
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
 Innovation
below expectations
 Conventional ILS less tenable
 Proliferation of products
related to e-content
management
 New genre of discovery-layer
interfaces


Is the OPAC module of the LMS a sure bet?
Is the time ripe for new discovery systems?

Lots of non-library Web destinations deliver
content to library patrons
◦
◦
◦
◦


Google Scholar
Amazon.com
Wikipedia
Ask.com
Do Library Web sites and catalogs meet the
information needs of our users?
Do they attract their interest?




Urgent need for libraries to offer interfaces
their users will like to use
Move into the current millennium
Powerful search capabilities in tune with how
the Web works today
Meet user expectations set by other Web
destination






Online Catalog modules provided with an ILS
subject to broad criticism as failing to meet
expectations of growing segments of library
patrons.
Not great at delivering electronic content
Complex text-based interfaces
Relatively weak keyword search engines
Lack of good relevancy sorting
Narrow scope of content

Silos Prevail
◦ Books: Library OPAC (ILS module)
◦ Articles: Aggregated content products, ejournal collections
◦ OpenURL linking services
◦ E-journal finding aids (Often managed by link
resolver)
◦ Local digital collections
 ETDs, photos, rich media collections
◦ Metasearch engines

All searched separately



Discovery addresses a broader scope than
any single automation system or repository
User interfaces require quicker replacement
cycles
Back-end systems involve longer transitions







Attempt to collapse silos or draw
appropriately from each silo
Unified user experience
A single point of entry into all the content
and services offered by the library
Print + Electronic
Local + Remote
Locally created Content
User contributed content



New-generation interface
Harvested local content
Vendor-supplied indexes of library content
◦ E-journals, databases, e-books
◦ Book collections beyond local library collections



Indexing the full corpus of information available
globally

Or at least major portions

Not quite comprehensive – partial harvesting of any given
resource
Google aims to address all the world’s information
Discovery Layer Products for libraries aim to address
all content collected by libraries:





Print
Remotely access electronic content: e-journals, e-books,
databases, licensed and open access.
Local special collections: digital and print.
Addresses the comprehensive body of content held
within library collections
Comprehensive, unified





Entering post-metadata search era
Increasing opportunities to search the full
contents
◦ Google Library Print, Google Publisher, Open
Content Alliance, etc.
◦ High-quality metadata will improve search
precision
Commercial search providers already offer
“search inside the book” and searching across
the full text of large book collections
Not currently available through library search
environments
Deep search highly improved by high-quality
metadata
See: Systems Librarian, May 2008 “Beyond the current generation of next-generation
interfaces: deeper search”





Fulfillment oriented
Search -> select -> view
Delivery/Fulfillment much harder than
discovery
Back-end complexity should be as seamless
as possible to the user
Offer services for digital and print content

Initial products focused on technology
◦ AquaBrowser, Endeca, Primo, Encore, VUfind
◦ Mostly locally-installed software

Current phase focused on pre-populated
indexes that aim to deliver Web-scale
discovery
◦
◦
◦
◦
Summon (Serials Solutions)
WorldCat Local (OCLC)
EBSCO Discovery Service (EBSCO)
All hosted services


Local discovery provides flexibility for
libraries to create customized access to
collections
Web-scale discovery emphasizes unified
access and broad scope


New Discovery Service
Consolidated index harvested from many
sources
◦ ProQuest, Gale, etc
◦ 300,000,000 articles represented
◦ Full-text search + Citations



Local catalog data harvested, real-time link to
holdings
Other local repositories harvested
Others available through metasearch




Existing service in pilot stage for new
discovery service
WorldCat.org data + ArticleFirst (30 million
articles)
Agreement with EBSCO to load EBSCOhost
citation data into WorldCat
Pursuing agreements with additional content
providers




No-cost option to FirstSearch subscribers
No reclamation to reconcile local ILS with
WorldCat
One ILS supported; must be among
supported products
Program to expose thousands of libraries to
WorldCat Local as a discovery option



Massive pre-harvested index of e-journal
content
Worldcat.org
Locally harvested metadata



Is the conventional library management
system a safe bet moving forward?
Will Open Source LMS overtake propriety
products
Evergreen, Koha, OLE?


Favours print inventory
Electronic resources managed separately

Traditional ILS
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Cataloging
Circulation
Online Catalog
Acquisitions
Serials control
Reporting
Modern approach:
◦ SOA
◦ Business process modeling


Service oriented Architecture
Openness
◦ Open APIs, Open Source





Web services
Cloud storage and services
Flexible XML data models
Web-based interfaces (Staff and patron)
Mobile apps and interfaces



Monolithic hard-coded systems
MARC-based metadata model
Client/Server computing

Sure thing, or risky proposition?
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
CatalogingCirculationAcquisitions
No
programmable
Access to the
system.
Captive to the
user
Interfaces
supplied by
the developer
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
CatalogingCirculationAcquisitions
Database
administrators
can access
data stores
involved with
the system:
Read-only?
Read/write?
Developer
shares
database
schema
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
CatalogingCirculationAcquisitions
All aspects of
the system
available to
inspection and
modification.
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
CatalogingCirculationAcquisitions
Published APIs
Core
application
closed.
Third party
developers
code against
the published
APIs or RDBMS
tables.
End User
Interfaces:
Programmer
access:
Functional
modules:
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
CatalogingCirculationAcquisitions
Published APIs
Core
application
closed.
Third party
developers
code against
the published
APIs or RDBMS
tables.



Open APIs
Open Source
Open Data Models




Currently implemented ad hoc
Many libraries putting up blogs, wikis,
and fostering engagement in social
networking sites
Proliferation of silos with no integration
or interoperability with larger library Web
presence
Next Gen: Build social and collaborative
features into core automation
components





Fundamental assumption: Print + Digital = Hybrid
libraries
Traditional ILS model not adequate for hybrid
libraries
Libraries currently moving toward surrounding core
ILS with additional modules to handle electronic
content
New discovery layer interfaces replacing or
supplementing ILS OPACS
Working toward a new model of library automation
◦ Monolithic legacy architectures replaced by fabric of SOA
applications
◦ Comprehensive Resource Management
“It's Time to Break the Mold of the Original ILS” Computers in Libraries Nov/Dec 2007

Library Management system
◦ Cataloging, Circulation, Serials, Acquisitions, OPAC





Link resolver with e-journal knowledgebase
Electronic Resource management system
Digital collections
Institutional repositories
Discovery Environments

Current LMS model replicates portions of
business systems of colleges and universities
◦ Authentication and authorization
◦ Financial systems

Current LMS model does not integrate as well
with HE infrastructure
◦ Virtual Learning Environments, Course Management
Systems


Curating or Managing non-library content for the
broader organization
Current automation systems provide little
support for public services
◦ Customer relationship management

OLE Project

Ex Libris URM
◦ Funded by the Research in Information Technology program
of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
◦ 1-year project to produce the requirements for a new
approach to library automation
◦ Will embrace the service-oriented architecture
◦ Business process modeling based on library workflows
unconstrained from existing legacy software
◦ Possible follow-on project to build and open source
reference implementation
◦ Mentioned publically but not formally announced
◦ Working toward new platform that better integrates print
and electronic content
 Probably will be based on some existing products
http://www.sun.com/products/soa/benefits.jsp
End User
Interfaces:
Circulation Acquisitions
Functional
modules: Federated
Search
Cataloging
Data Stores:
Staff Interfaces:
Serials
OpenURL
Linking
Electronic
Resource
Mgmt
System
Composite
Applications
Granular
tasks:
Data
Stores:
Reusable
Business
Services

Extend WorldCat Local to include
◦
◦
◦
◦


Circulation
Delivery
Acquisitions
License Management
Positioned as Web-scale, cloud computing
model, cooperative library system
Pilot sites being finalized; general availability
in 2010





Amazon.com = federated groups of sellers
sharing common infrastructure
Unified from end-user perspective
Web Services, cloud computing model
Modern user interfaces
High level of usability
◦ Discovery, Fulfillment

Web 2.0 features
◦ User-contributed ratings and reviews





Cannot continue to throwing in chips on a losing
hand
Current automation models reinforce the library as an
independent silo of automation and information
systems
Can we bet on new technologies that will place
libraries more at the heart of higher education
organizations?
Will current LMS products evolve to better serve
modern Libraries?
Will new transformative products based on new
automation products emerge?